Main menu

Sub menu

On Councilor Cortell’s Comments

In last week’s Record, we published a story about a condo unit on Admiral’s Hill which is vacant and with its owner suffering health issues because of an alleged toxic mold issue related to water infiltration into the unit that apparently was not addressed by the management company running the building.

In any case, the alleged contamination of the unit with toxic mold has caused a lawsuit to be filed against Admiral’s Flagship Condominium and its manager Lundgren Management Group, Inc., and Construction Design Limited, by the owner of the condo unit.

As we noted last week, by all appearances, this may turn into a landmark case for the court, which has allowed the suit to stand despite the fact the suit was filed after the statute of limitations had run out.

Enter Admiral’s Hill Councilman Attorney Dan Cortell, who addressed the condo owner’s health plight with comments made to the Record last week.

“You can’t read the facts of the case as written, be a condo owner like me and not be disturbed by a timetable where it appears the management company had four or more years and numerous chances to fix or to mitigate a problem with unsuccessful efforts being characterized by the court as either untimely or inappropriate,” Cortell told the Record.

He stepped up to the plate more as a councilor than as a condo owner – although he is both – in order to make others aware of the potential dangers of toxic mold contamination.

In fact, the Admiral’s Flagship possible toxic contamination issue has been public record for longer than four years with Lawyer’s Weekly writing and publishing stories about this very case in its newspaper and disseminating them worldwide on its website.

The case is also part of the public record in Superior Court, was already tried and failed in the Appeals Court and now has been re-entered for trial by Attorney Edmund Allcock and his colleagues.

We are not sure there is a correlation between the comments made about the situation by Councillor Cortell last week and the fact he has been subpoenaed by the Admiral’s Flagship Condominium Trust by their attorney, Mr. Allcock.

We must assume there is.

We would like to assume this action was taken against Councillor Cortell for all the right reasons.

However, on its face, it appears that Councillor Cortell is being called in to be deposed more as an effort to stifle his First Amendment rights to express himself freely rather than to contribute something of a scientific nature about the possible toxic mold problems in a condo unit or the condo unit’s owner’s health problems.

Perhaps this is the case. Perhaps not.

Councillor Cortell was acting on behalf of his Admiral’s Hill constituents and will be represented by the Chelsea City Solicitor.

The Admiral’s Flagship owners will be shelling out their hard earned money to Attorney Allcock, who will presumably want to be paid for the deposition of Councillor Cortell.

Bottom line, the money being spent and the energy as well to depose Councillor Cortell will do nothing to advance the needs of Admiral’s Flagship condo owners who are facing a potentially sizable lawsuit from a condo owner who has vacated her unit, which is allegedly contaminated with toxic mold.

Councillor Cortell’s admonition that everything may not be right for many of constituents on Admiral’s Hill will survive the court’s test.